GO TO NOTE REFERENCE IN TEXT
complex patchwork: I. Glenn Cohen, “The Right(s) to Procreate and Assisted Reproductive Technologies in the United States” in The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Health Law, ed. Tamara K. Hervey and David Orentlicher (Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2021), 1009.
GO TO NOTE REFERENCE IN TEXT
In contrast: Vishan Dev Singh Jamwal and Arun Kumar Yadav, “The Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021: A Step in the Right Direction,” Indian Journal of Community Medicine 48, no. 1 (2023): 4–6, doi.org/10.4103/ijcm.ijcm_169_22.
GO TO NOTE REFERENCE IN TEXT
CLIA doesn’t extend: American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) and the Society for Reproductive Biologists and Technologists (SRBT), “Comprehensive Guidance for Human Embryology, Andrology, and Endocrinology Laboratories: Management and Operations: A Committee Opinion,” Fertility and Sterility 117, no. 6 (2022): 1183–1202, doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2022.02.016.
GO TO NOTE REFERENCE IN TEXT
required to report: In 1992, Congress passed the Fertility Clinic Success Rate and Certification Act—the only federal legislation that specifically pertains to assisted reproductive technology—which requires all U.S. clinics performing ART to report data annually to the CDC. In addition to providing pregnancy success rates, clinics must provide details of treatment cycles, including infertility diagnosis, number of embryos transferred, and use of fresh or frozen embryos and donor or non-donor eggs. The CDC works in consultation with SART and ASRM to report ART success rates each year.
GO TO NOTE REFERENCE IN TEXT
donor tissue: This includes the screening and testing of reproductive tissue, such as donor eggs and sperm, to ensure it’s free from disease.
GO TO NOTE REFERENCE IN TEXT
disclosure of medical errors: ASRM and SRBT Committee Report, “Comprehensive Guidance.”
GO TO NOTE REFERENCE IN TEXT
“might improve the uniformity”: ASRM, “Oversight of Assisted Reproductive Technology,” updated 2021, asrm.org/globalassets/_asrm/advocacy-and-policy/oversiteofart.pdf.
GO TO NOTE REFERENCE IN TEXT
Arizona passed: Arizona Revised Statutes, 2018, Section 25-318.03, “Marital and Domestic Relations,” law.justia.com/codes/arizona/2018/title-25/section-25-318.03.
GO TO NOTE REFERENCE IN TEXT
“Just like a judge”: Kathy Ritchie, “Arizona Governor Signs Bill to Change Laws Concerning Frozen Embryos,” KJZZ, April 5, 2018, kjzz.org/content/633242/arizona-governor-signs-bill-change-laws-concerning-frozen-embryos.
GO TO NOTE REFERENCE IN TEXT
a Virginia judge: Matthew Barakat, “Judge Uses a Slavery Law to Rule Frozen Embryos Are Property,” Associated Press, March 9, 2023, apnews.com/article/embryos-slavery-chattel-custody-virginia-82e1f36ecbcf35ec4659e8e2c3443c4f.
GO TO NOTE REFERENCE IN TEXT
embryos as “juridical persons”: Hannah C. Catchings, “A ‘Modern Family’ Issue: Recategorizing Embryos in the 21st Century,” Louisiana Law Review 80, no. 4 (2020): 1521–1556, digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/lalrev/vol80/iss4/12/.
GO TO NOTE REFERENCE IN TEXT
foreshadows: Gerard Letterie and Dov Fox, “Legal Personhood and Frozen Embryos: Implications for Fertility Patients and Providers in Post-Roe America,” Journal of Law and the Biosciences 10, no. 1 (2023): 1–13, doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsad006.
GO TO NOTE REFERENCE IN TEXT
legal gray area: Julianna Goldman, “Why Many IVF Patients Worry About the Antiabortion Movement,” Washington Post, July 29, 2023, washingtonpost.com/wellness/2023/07/29/dobbs-abortion-ivf-embryos-impact/.
GO TO NOTE REFERENCE IN TEXT
courts struggled: American Bar Association, “In Case of Divorce, Destroy the Eggs,” December 9, 2015, americanbar.org/groups/litigation/committees/minority-trial-lawyer/practice/2015/in-case-of-divorce-destroy-the-eggs/.
GO TO NOTE REFERENCE IN TEXT
1.5 million frozen embryos: Gerard Letterie, “In Re: The Disposition of Frozen Embryos: 2022,” Fertility and Sterility 117, no. 3 (2022): 477–480, doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2022.01.001.
GO TO NOTE REFERENCE IN TEXT
“I live in a freezer now”: Susanna Fogel, “Your Frozen Egg Has a Question,” New Yorker, May 15, 2017, newyorker.com/magazine/2017/05/22/your-frozen-egg-has-a-question.
GO TO NOTE REFERENCE IN TEXT
nine hundred babies: N. Noyes, E. Porcu, and A. Borini, “Over 900 Oocyte Cryopreservation Babies Born with No Apparent Increase in Congenital Anomalies,” Reproductive BioMedicine Online 18, no. 6 (2009): 769–776, doi.org/10.1016/s1472-6483(10)60025-9.
GO TO NOTE REFERENCE IN TEXT
A 2013 study: Paolo Emanuele Levi Setti, Elena Albani, Emanuela Morenghi, Giovanna Morreale, Luisa Delle Piane, Giulia Scaravelli, and Pasquale Patrizio, “Comparative Analysis of Fetal and Neonatal Outcomes of Pregnancies from Fresh and Cryopreserved/Thawed Oocytes in the Same Group of Patients,” Fertility and Sterility 100, no. 2 (2013): 396–401, doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.03.038.
GO TO NOTE REFERENCE IN TEXT
technically, in the United States: Denmark has a five-year limit on cryopreservation storage of embryos. Switzerland, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and some Australian states have enacted ten-year storage limits.
GO TO NOTE REFERENCE IN TEXT
increased health risks: A few examples:
